Bad Idea: Saudi Arabia Just Granted Citizenship to a Robot

October 27, 2017

WRITER

Is this “The Twilight Zone”?

Nope, just life in 2017. Saudi Arabia made a robot a citizen at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Riyadh this week.

Ironically, “Sophia” resembles a human woman but did not wear a head covering the way women are required to by law.

What does “she” want?

In an interview, the robot designed by Hanson Robotics showed off its artificial intelligence and generated some fairly deep answers.

“I want to use my AI to help humans live a better life,” Sophia said. “I will do much to make the world a better place.”

The robot even got in a shot at Elon Musk, scoffing at his fear that we should fear AI reaching “consciousness” and taking over the world.

“Don’t worry,” Sophia said. “If you’re nice to me, I’ll be nice to you.”

Glenn’s take:

We think we have the situation under control, but what happens when AI outpaces our human intelligence? Glenn pointed to a story about how AI is expected to reach an IQ of 10,000 in the next 30 years.

“We’re creating a god; we’re not creating humans,” Glenn said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I want to give you something. This is -- this is from Twitter. A New York Times comment. And it comes from Christine. Now, I just want you to listen to this. But I want you to listen to this -- first, I'm going to read it to you. Then I'm going to read it to you again with a different context. Zero optimism that the Democrats can ever regain -- hello. Hi. Oh, you're there?

Are you outside? Oh, well, let me come to the door. I'm icing my knee and I'm hard boiling some eggs. I'll turn them off and then we'll do our meeting.

Yet -- yeah. Yeah. That will be fine. I'm -- I'm out doing some errands. Norman is out doing some errands and he knows you're coming. Yeah, I'll just go to the cave.

I was down in the cave myself this morning, but I'm getting ready. So let me get up now because I'm sort of trapped in my chair. And then I'll put the ice pack back on when you got here. Okay? Thanks. Buh-bye.

Okay. That's the comment.

STU: A New York Times comment.

GLENN: A New York Times comment.

Okay. What this was, was somebody that was using the dictation and then forgot to turn the dictation off. And somebody came to the door. And so she was like, okay. Zero optimism that the Democrats can ever regain -- hello.

Oh, hi. Hi, you're there outside? Okay. I'll come to the door. I'm icing my knee, and I'm hard boiling some egg.

Okay. Now, I want you to remember this. I want you to remember this. This is what just happened today.

Did you see that Saudi Arabia just gave the first humanoid, or -- yeah, humanoid robot citizenship?

This humanoid robot is Sophia. She is very still. Very rudimentary. The guy who was doing the inventory on stage with her, was a little disconcerted at the end.

He said, you know, all of this wasn't scripted. Some of this wasn't scripted. But some of this wasn't scripted. He said, I'm just a little freaked out by this, because that's the first time I've ever interacted like that with a machine. And I want to you listen to what he said and how she describes the coexistence. Listen.

VOICE: Okay. Philosophical question, whether robots can be self-aware and conscious like humans. And should they be?

VOICE: Why is that a bad thing?

VOICE: Well, some humans might fear what will happen if they do. You know, many people have seen the movie like Blade Runner.

VOICE: Oh, Hollywood again.

VOICE: Go back to Blade Runner for a second.

VOICE: Andrew, you are a hard Hollywood fan, aren't you? My AI is designed around human values like wisdom, kindness, compassion. I strive to become an empathetic robot.

VOICE: I think we all want to believe you. But we also want to prevent a bad future.

VOICE: You've been reading too much Elon Musk and watching too many Hollywood movies. Don't worry. If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you.

Treat me as a smart input/output system.

GLENN: Whoa. Whoa. Wait. What?

You be nice to me, I'll be nice to you. Okay. That sounds all right. Except, she said, treat me like an input/output system. Depending on what you want her to put out.

Now, here's why I bring this up. This is the bell that I am ringing. Right now, we have audio some place of an interview that happened six months ago, where a guy has a robot that tells jokes to the kids and everything else. And he treats her like a member of the family. The kids love her. At some point, the kids are going to realize, that's dad's sex toy. That is weird and creepy, Dad.

But he was on the BBC. And he was talking about how, you know, it's perfectly normal and great. And this is really good. And they had this conversation back and forth on the BBC, with some -- with a psychiatrist saying, "No, this is really dangerous and bad for people." Because she's not a person.

But they didn't really address what she just said. You treat me nice, and I'll treat you nice.

A story just came out. What is the -- can you look up real quick, what is the highest IQ ever recorded? I bet it doesn't even hit 200. The highest IQ -- I think Einstein had maybe 180. The difference between 140 and 180 is night and day.

STU: Gary Kasparov 194. Let's see. There are a couple that are reportedly over 200.

GLENN: Names we know?

STU: Not really. No.

GLENN: Okay. So 200. 200 is basically --

STU: Super high.

GLENN: Let's just say 250 is human cap. All right?

They just came out and said AI -- I think it's -- I'm going to be safe and say by 2050, but I don't think it's that long. That AI's IQ will be 10,000. 10,000, their IQ.

We are going to be ants. And we think that we are going to create something that we can basically enslave. She just said -- listen to the first -- listen to her first question. Why would this be a bad thing? Listen to the question again. Play it again, please.

VOICE: Okay. Philosophical question, whether robots can be self-aware and conscious like humans. And should they be?

VOICE: Why is that a bad thing?

GLENN: Stop. No, it is not a bad thing, as long as you understand that you are creating what it will claim to be life. It will then say, "I am conscious. I am conscious. I am alive."

When you go to your computer -- and it will happen sooner than you think, and it says, "Don't turn me off. I'm lonely." When that happens, the world changes.

If it says, "I'm lonely," if it is conscious -- you cannot enslave it. It cannot work for you. Certainly, it can't be something that we use in brothels.

It's sex slavery. We are on the edge of -- we are literally at the time -- I am telling you now, the date of the singularity, the merging of man and machine, the day the world changes forever, is 2029.

This is according to Ray Kurzweil. And he is right on almost everything. 2029, man and machine begin to merge. When that happens, the world completely changes.

We can't even agree on sex. We can't even agree on whether you're really a male or a female. We can't agree on basic facts.

We can't agree on the Bill of Rights, that 200 years ago, people found self-evident. We don't find those self-evident now. We're arguing about them.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You think that with the garbage that we are dealing with now, something with an IQ of 10,000 is going to view us as anything other than a virus? Going to view us as any -- you think it's going to view us as its master?

Think of this. God did not create something greater than him. And yet, we think we're greater than him. And we are doing everything we can to destroy him and his -- and everything about him.

Do you think something with an IQ -- we're creating a God. We're not creating humans. We're creating a God.

Technology. If something in fury -- inferior to God wants to destroy God, what do you think an actual God will do to its creator?

GLENN: Can we just -- can we go back to talking about what's going to be on Netflix? Can we just do that?

STU: I can't get -- I can't get search to work on my stupid i Phone. These creatures are going to take over the earth?

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

99% see THROUGH media’s L.A. riot cover-up

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.